Who is Wade Englund?

[_EAllusion]

(Hint: parodies of real bigotry would still be bigotry and offencive and warrant objection. Your silence was telling.)

The heck? Pointing out someone's bigotry by way of parody is itself bigoted? Did you type that confidentally thinking it was right?

Are women as a group, and homosexuals as a group, above and beyond criticism?

Heh. It's Ok to criticize tendencies in a class of people Wade. It's not Ok to generalize negative traits to a group of people. And if your "criticism" is wrong headed - for example criticizing blacks for being criminals - expect offense. If your "criticism" is part of a traditional motif used to justify wrong behavior towards that group of people, expect even more offense.

[_EAllusion]

Reading this part of Wade's post, I really, really think that he does not have a lot of experience with this kind of thing in practice. I don't say that to insult him, but simply to suggest that his opinions on human sexuality may not need to be taken too seriously.

I wouldn't go that far. For instance, some bisexual men genuinely don't appreciate that not everyone can get aroused by women on a day to day basis even if they try. Who knows where he is coming from.

[_wenglund]

If the neadrathals here, with mono-dimensional views of human sexuality, are hypocritically prejudice against considering the modern, reasonable, and multi-dimensional perspective about sexual relations from men over 50 who have never married, and doubt what is said about gay men being capable of having sexual relations with women, perhaps they may cponsult several of the previously married, fathers of children, openly gay men participating on this board.

But, that may be more than your microscopic brains can handle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_EAllusion]

Who said gay men aren't capable of having sex with women? First, categorizing people as straight vs. gay misunderstands that there is a range of bisexuality in the population. Second, some gay men can be physically stimulated by a woman without feeling much sexual attraction. But others can't. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, though I guess I understand if it is.

[_Buffalo]

If the neadrathals here, with mono-dimensional views of human sexuality, are hypocritically prejudice against considering the modern, reasonable, and multi-dimensional perspective about sexual relations from men over 50 who have never married, and doubt what is said about gay men being capable of having sexual relations with women, perhaps they may cponsult several of the previously married, fathers of children, openly gay men participating on this board.

But, that may be more than your microscopic brains can handle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Take a deep breath and try to reformulate that more clearly, would you? I don't just mean the misspellings, I mean the hopelessly garbled sentence structure too.

[_wenglund]

The heck? Pointing out someone's bigotry by way of parody is itself bigoted? Did you type that confidentally thinking it was right?

I typed it confident that it's rather large rightness would fail to fit the narrow confines of your small mind.

It's Ok to criticize tendencies in a class of people Wade. It's not Ok to generalize negative traits to a group of people.

Fine, if you want to play symantics, then let me rephrase what I said earlier in a way that you and others might find acceptable: "To make matters worse, the gay men I am familiar with tend to embrace rather than eshew tendencies in women, as a class, that I find worthy of criticism.

There...ya happy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Who said gay men aren't capable of having sex with women?

Certainly not me. I merely mentioned that sexcual attraction between gays and women isn't necessary to them having sex. All that is needed is the capacity for gay men to be sexually stimulated by women. Several neandrathals around here expressed doubt about what I said, thus implying THEIR skepticism about gay men having sex with women.

First, categorizing people as straight vs. gay misunderstands that there is a range of bisexuality in the population.

No. It simply speaks pragmatically to the two broadest segments along that range.

Second, some gay men can be physically stimulated by a woman without feeling much sexual attraction. But others can't.

Hence, my qualified comment.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, though I guess I understand if it is.

Evidently, it is a surprise to the neandrathal/buffalo I have recently interacted with.

And, to think that it came as no surprise to me, who has never been married. How is that possible? LOL

Thank's -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Take a deep breath and try to reformulate that more clearly, would you? I don't just mean the misspellings, I mean the hopelessly garbled sentence structure too.

I will dumb it down for you. Simply put, if you don't believe what I said, then talk to Darren about whether a gay man can have sexual relations with a woman. Or, take EA's word for it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

My psych adviser promised that she would automatically give a failing grade to any paper that had as its conclusion that some psychological trait was a byproduct of the interaction between nature and nurture. That's not because it isn't true, but that this is so trivially true that no one disputes it.

I'm not interested in the perspectives of your psyche adviser, as he/she isn't here. I'm interested in your own beliefs and your reasons why we should believe they are plausible or likely.

So you either are doing that here, and misunderstanding what a great deal of feminists think,

That can be summed up by simply stating that, for post first wave feminism, much of what western, and especially traditional American culture, consider natural "feminine" behavior, interests, and psychological characteristics are actually social constructions maintained over time by patriarchal institutions and social structures who's interest is in perpetuating the economic, social, political, and sexual (through traditional gender roles and childbirth/rearing) dominance of males over females through various sociocultural myths ("traditional American values") and oppressive institutions (marriage, traditional intact two parent "June Clever" families, heteronormativity etc.) that perpetuate these artificial "ideologies" of oppression through which woman are controlled and channeled into accepted "feminine" roles and limitations.

or you are implying without asserting that traits like concern with physical appearance - which has drastically changed over the past few decades -

Its changed "drastically"? In what sense?

have their variance explained in terms of sexual dimorphism driving cultural influence.

I mentioned nothing about sexual dimorphism. If you will look at my initial statement again, you will se that what I'm proposing is that interactions between intrinsic, internal psychological dynamics unique to females and expressing certain emphasis and de-emphasis, becomes reflected in cultural norms and assumptions, which they support, or encourage, those very intrinsic attributes.

That such inherent characteristics may become altered, exaggerated, or even debased and corrupted, I'm not questioning. What is in question is the longstanding feminist belief that our core concepts of "femininity" are primarily the cultural construction of an oppressive male over-society the fundamental assumptions and observations of which are wholly artificial.

[_Buffalo]

Take a deep breath and try to reformulate that more clearly, would you? I don't just mean the misspellings, I mean the hopelessly garbled sentence structure too.

I will dumb it down for you. Simply put, if you don't believe what I said, then talk to Darren about whether a gay man can have sexual relations with a woman. Or, take EA's word for it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's the problem - it was too dumbed down. I'd appreciate it it if you could smarten it up.

Simplifying isn't the same as dumbing things down, you know. The problem is when you attempt to sound educated, it comes out garbled. You can't play the pedantry game effectively.

Obviously gay and straight people can manage to have sexual relations with anyone, given enough motivation.